Epic Stupid: Ted Cruz - "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet"

a reply to: Indigo5

Many already argue that the 1st amendment does give them the right to regulate speech....the govt has on numerous occasions burned books and destroyed media. Just take the case of Wilhelm Reich as exhibit A. This was after the book burning parties of the Nazis were over, took place in America in the 1950s. Look at book publishers such as Hitman by Loompanics, research that one. They claim the right to regulate speech and hold people liable for the acts of others.

Also, let's take an example of monopoly a little bit more relevant....take Myspace, anyone still use it, likely not, how about Friendster, nope, Google PLus, maybe a couple, facebook...probably all of you. But that maybe a monopoly of social networking, shouldn't we break it up and make 25% of you use myspace, 25% use Friendster and the other 25% for Google plus and 25% for facebook? Would that be an efficient use of resources? Would it make use of the service better for everyone? Nope. Even if the Cable or ATT tried to implement a program of allocated bundling packages, that maybe no guarantee that people will continue to use said services.

The benefits of using say facebook increases to you as more people use it, if facebook tomorrow charged $20 to use it every month it would automatically lose benefit as many would drop out of it. Same with internet bundles, as they try to charge more for well used services they lose customers that want to use the packages, they lose revenue and see the mistake of trying to shut some users out, as it makes the service less useful to those that stay. That in itself makes it impossible for the scenario of cable and ATT killing their own golden goose by trying to nickle and dime people, some might pay more, but they stand to lose substantial customer base as a result of their actions, if the cost goes up they stand to lose a larger customer base which maybe useful to keeping those that will pay a higher price from walking, without access to people that can't afford a higher price the service becomes less useful and instead of comcast winning they start to turn into a myspace, if everyone couldn't get what they wanted to get to on the net or were restricted by throttling and bandwith problems many would quit using the service and cause substantial loss of revenue for the companies.

Also knowing that you face a potential competition makes these companies behave responsively to customer complaints. The govt has no incentive to do such. Same with dating websites, word processing programs and Internet browsers. All it maybe take maybe one or two more fiber backbone competitors maybe an Elon Musk network Google or maybe a network run by some other billionaire with the money to run pipes everywhere....some say that we don't need multiple lines but I would argue from a security standpoint the more the better, having one or 3 lanes maybe cost effective but prone to disruption. As soon as cable or Teleco tried to undermine the network I guarantee a competitor would arise pretty damn fast to exploit the lost market share and would possibly tout a network faster and more stable...these companies know this, they fear it, so they can be steered.

Today's inefficiencies are tomorrows opportunities.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Indigo5

I simply don't agree with Soros' leftist causes and I guess you do.

yah...Me...and 85% of Republican voters...believe in the "leftist cause" of Net Neutrality...logic fail

New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality

Republicans were slightly more likely to support net neutrality than Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans in the survey said they opposed fast lanes.

Thank you for pointing that out. I'd like to see if the numbers change now that Obama and Ted Cruz throw there names in. the "if ____is for it i'm against it" crowd could show up.

The polls are post Ted and Obama comments.

Yea but it's America, the comments are still recent enough that people haven't sifted them through the jungle of Kim Kardasian butt pics. it will take some time for the talking heads to effect opinions.

Also take Cable TV that started in the late 70's, highly regulated. Then in early 80's deregulated, what happened...price went up...but so did subscriptions actually. Choice and variety exploded in addition to use. So when an industry maybe highly regulated where's the incentive to innovate? No incentive. Why bother, can't make any money off the innovation, same with drug manufacture. Why bother? Same for competition, why bother making an investment in a highly controlled regulated industry? More regulations does not make the Internet cheaper and more free, just the opposite seems the case. If you take history as a guide to innovation in any industry....as soon as the regulators move in, the innovators move out. Quantity went up with price going up with Cable TV. People were actually happier with higher prices cause you could innovate around it more. Most harmful forms of monopoly arise from govt privilege. These laws being brought forth seem to me attempts to bring about FCC privileges. Same with licenses for jobs and use of airwaves and stations. That maybe a monopoly privilege. Usually it maybe sold as a form of protection as the FCC maybe trying to do here, when they are already captured by the industry they are claiming to need to regulate.

originally posted by: bubbabuddha
Yes, why can't we have rules without giving any control away? It seems once the FCC gets a chance to put in rules than the right to govern those rules gives them the right to control the internet.

You've got it backwards. Net Neutrality is basically the rule that they can't put new rules in place. Repealing it lets them put whatever types of rules in place that they want.

People are wishful if they think the Gov would be "Neutral" about anything.....the FCC has a history of censorship, fines, kicking people off the air, revoking licenses and a love for three strikes and your out mentality that gives this move a CISPA in disguise award for sheer marketing genius, give them the marketed term they want and then get your foot in the door and claim the right to revoke internet addresses for obscene content, fine for willful posting of non bona fide news from non bona fide news organizations, etc.

How does saying packets of data must be treated equally over a network enable anything you just said? It instead explicitly prohibits it because kicking certain packets off the network or prioritizing certain data is inequal treatment. Repealing Net Neutrality enables everything you just said, not keeping it.

And to those upset about one company....then I guess you want one government controlling it instead?

Under Net Neutrality the government doesn't control it. As a utility the government doesn't control it either anymore than they control the PRIVATE electric companies. All utility classification does is ensure that the service provider can't dictate how you use that service. Your electric company can't come out with a rule that says you're not allowed to use a space heater. As a utility your ISP can't come out and say you're not allowed to use Netflix instead of their approved streaming options.

Who's to say Google and ATT, Comcast actually really want these regulations to lock them into power?

Google is pro neutrality, their business model relies on an open accessible internet with lots of content providers. Comcast is anti neutrality, their business model relies on low network use so that they need less hardware, as well as bundle deals like triple play where they can sell TV service. That's actually what this is primarily about. TV is about to go the way of the dodo because of companies like Netflix which have a better model and distribution system. The telecoms like Comcast don't like that, they want to keep selling TV service. So they're spending billions on lobbying the government in order to get laws that prevent competition from eliminating their TV products. Net Neutrality is the free market approach where more competitive products are successful, eliminating it is a way to prevent competition.

originally posted by: bubbabuddha
Also, let's take an example of monopoly a little bit more relevant....take Myspace, anyone still use it, likely not, how about Friendster, nope, Google PLus, maybe a couple, facebook...probably all of you. But that maybe a monopoly of social networking, shouldn't we break it up and make 25% of you use myspace, 25% use Friendster and the other 25% for Google plus and 25% for facebook? Would that be an efficient use of resources? Would it make use of the service better for everyone? Nope. Even if the Cable or ATT tried to implement a program of allocated bundling packages, that maybe no guarantee that people will continue to use said services.

Lets stick with your example of MySpace. With Net Neutrality Facebook was able to start up, they didn't need several hundred million in operating capital to purchase priority internet access. They were able to create a product and put it out there for people to use just as Myspace could by designing a website and hosting it on the servers. Without Net Neutrality Myspace would have been able to buy priority service and prevent Facebook from ever becoming a thing.

That in itself makes it impossible for the scenario of cable and ATT killing their own golden goose by trying to nickle and dime people, some might pay more, but they stand to lose substantial customer base as a result of their actions

No, they don't. Net Neutrality is all about content providers. If your business uses a website, what are you going to do? Suddenly not run a website and have your business shrink? That will happen for some people, but the telecoms want that. They want a smaller internet as it means less traffic which means they don't need to upgrade the network. It's all about creating additional costs for content providers. The regular citizen isn't going to see additional costs on their internet connection, though they'll likely see every website they can access start charging a subscription. Instead what will happen is the regular citizen will pay for a certain level of speed, but then unapproved websites will load slower and never deliver on that speed tier that the person is paying for.

Also knowing that you face a potential competition makes these companies behave responsively to customer complaints.

There is no competition. Comcast, Verizon, and the rest operate as monopolies. That is unlikely to change, even if we were to break the companies up they are local monopolies and we wouldn't suddenly have more competition we would just go back to the situation where there were 30 local monopolies across the country instead of 5.

Here is why Obama is talking out of his ass on the issue of net neutrality he placed at the head of the FCC a freakin Tele Com lobbyist kilk and watch.

a reply to: Aazadan

You're making a mistake, as others have noted he appointed Wheeler, what more do you need to see the fallacy of his speech? People speculate the the cable and phone companies will always have control....it seems to me a little on the Nostradamus kind of speculating.....Elon Musk has tried to run auto stores in a different manner than the autos usually run it and the states are trying to ban them from selling cars in their states....now all it would take maybe some other billionaire to stop building space jets and to build a couple of extra pipelines for the good of society and these companies would lose out to the competition. You don't address the concept of competition. The govt would not allow for competition. The extra layer will not make it more free. Adding more bureaucracy does not make the internet more free. All of these arguments hinge on the notion that cable and tele companies can implement a horrible service that will not drive people off the net and collapse their profits.

What we have maybe a basic Price and Quantity graph with a downward sloping demand curve here. We have marginal cost and assume no fixed cost for an average total cost. The height of the demand curve at any value maybe the subjective value that user puts on the purchase of the unit, in this case being the the price of internet. There maybe a limit to the actual price that will be paid by a certain amount of people....1 person will pay say $1,000 a month for internet whereas 1,000 are more likely to pay $50 a month. 100 say $100 a month, etc. Obviously these numbers would be much higher but these are just examples....so as you go higher in cost less people can find it worth it to buy the service. In order for the price to cost more there has to be something of value in comparison to the regular cost of internet....otherwise no one will buy the more expensive faster internet deal, why would i buy that when I can get all i want for the lower price as well? When the price gets lowered to get more customers the monopolist starts to get in a range where no profit can be made. Marginal benefit equals marginal cost. All of the gains of buyers that value the service more than production never get realized with a monopoly, inefficient allocation of resources results. That maybe what gets called DWL ...Dead Weight Loss, the gains from trade that nobody realizes. To try and make a profit off the DWL they practice what maybe called "price discriminate"....different prices for different buyers. People try to arbitrage, but take dvd players as an example, they put codes to try and prevent the arbitrage from happening, cause say in India the same dvd can only sell for $5 vs $20 that people maybe willing to pay in the US. If they were forced to sell at only one price in the world India would probably not get very many dvds...this happens with services too. Price discrimination maybe everywhere, pretty common. Senior citizen discounts, student discounts etc. That's not just being nice to them, BS it's profit maximizing for them. Same with "Financial Aide", another price discrimination. They map out where you sit on the Price and quantity graph and figure out what to charge you. Who's against financial aide? We like to call that scholarships to make us feel better I guess. All costs are based on opportunity cost. All value maybe subjective. There maybe no "objective" marginal cost. Opportunity cost and subjective value apply to monopolists as well. If we are being consistent when he lowers price to gain more customers he loses current revenue. That maybe an opportunity cost.

The argument for "natural monopoly" maybe one from a cost perspective, it would cost more to have competition. In the market if we split it up we could 3 firms say producing at a higher average cost than the monopoly, more inefficiency. The other reason why a monopoly maybe good, maybe in reference to Myspace vs a whole host of other social sites. Facebook maybe a near monopoly of social media. Do you think your lives would be better if we broke that up and had a competitive industry? Do you think the cable or phone companies want to break that up with their own tiered versions of these services? Not if they want subscribers. Do you want to go on a dating website where there's not lots of other people? How about a comcast version with few people on it? nope. They know this. Most people on here act as if the cable companies cannot fathom that people would reject their system if it cost too much or that it were too exclusive...anybody can understand this, including them. First off, where did the graphics for tiering come from, from Comcast or ATT? Or did somebody just make it up and say they want this? Yes people are trying to cut the cord, these industries know this. I cut the cord about 14 years ago and I even stopped using the net for a couple years when I didn't feel like using it anymore, it was boring to have everything within reach on the net so to speak and in some sense too much, overload. Basically people can threaten a boycott of said tv and internet if they choose. Same with facebook or any other service that exploits people.

If you read between the lines of what Obama said...he said he was "against fast lanes"...then by that very nature he would be for slow lanes for everyone so nobody gets better access, kind of sucks if you want to pay more to get faster lanes than anyone else doesn't it, by law that would be illegal. Also shouldn't hospital and medical research networks have the fastest and highest priority lanes of all? You do want you doctor to have access to current studies when treating you don't you? Or maybe you prefer to watch netflix instead...priorities...apparently the internet providers by Law are not allowed to do that in this kind of "everyone must be slow" thinking. Maybe everyone should be exactly 6ft tall? Or maybe everyone should have the same mansions? Or the same computers too? You shouldn't be allowed to pay more for a better processor right? You should only get what everyone else can get at the same price everyone else pays right? And what of the police they should have congested networks too, blocked up with movies and facebook? I don't know but it seems to me that some services maybe higher priority than others, how do you implement that in a neutral environment?

For all we know the cable and phone companies were told to implement this by the govt in the first place. Ask yourself why would the govt ever want there to not be net neutrality or fast internet? I think they certainly would not want it to look like it was them sinking the internet ship right? Otherwise it might provoke a revolution right? So blame the dirty greedy tech companies...I mean NSA for doing it to you.

Of relevance.

As per the report, both Democrats and Republicans received over $8 million from companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, AT&T, and their trade group the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) in this year's election alone.

What's particularly concerning is that money doled out by these companies directly reaches politicians like Ted Cruz, who is on the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, which handles internet governance and FCC oversight.

Plain, simple, and proven. Law for sale.

a reply to: bubbabuddha

You're making a mistake, as others have noted he appointed Wheeler, what more do you need to see the fallacy of his speech?

This isn't about Obama. Obama ran on a platform of Net Neutrality, then appointed Wheeler, let the 2010? FCC rules go through, and has in general done the exact opposite of everything he has promised. Most people (85% of Republicans, 81% of Democrats), and virtually everyone (as in literally the entire tech industry aside from the ISP's) who understands what Net Neutrality is supports it.

now all it would take maybe some other billionaire to stop building space jets and to build a couple of extra pipelines for the good of society and these companies would lose out to the competition.

Most billionaires do not have the money. In order to build a competing network at todays dollar value it would cost approximately $600 billion going by what our initial network cost and inflation. The US is a tough market to build a network in because our population density is so low. In order to build that it would take 100% of the money the 10 richest people in the world have, and they're not even all American. $10 billion doesn't even build a network in a single state, it might cover one city.

You don't address the concept of competition. The govt would not allow for competition. The extra layer will not make it more free. Adding more bureaucracy does not make the internet more free.

Great, we agree. Now point out where Net Neutrality puts the government in control or adds bureaucracy. It doesn't, it infact reduces it. The additional laws that Verizon and Comcast are pushing which add thousands of pages worth of legislation and create a need for oversight agencies give the government far more control. Net Neutrality is the approach that requires the least legislation and keeps things in the hands of private industry. Repealing it is the act of getting the government involved in order to remove competitors. By your own argument you should be for Net Neutrality.

All of these arguments hinge on the notion that cable and tele companies can implement a horrible service that will not drive people off the net and collapse their profits.

It's called ecommerce and it's the largest source of commercial transactions in the world. Giving Verizon and Comcast what they want will essentially destroy ecommerce in the US while the rest of the world simply ignores us and passes us by. Like I've said before, I've been working on a business that will eventually be an ebusiness selling all over the world. If we repeal Net Neutrality I will be left with no choice other than to completely ignore the US as a market, many others are like me. That means less jobs in the US, less money being spent in the US, and fewer products made in the US.

The other reason why a monopoly maybe good, maybe in reference to Myspace vs a whole host of other social sites. Facebook maybe a near monopoly of social media.

Facebook is popular but they are not a monopoly. Furthermore there is nothing that prevents anyone else from challenging Facebook. If I were so inclined I could build a database, and a website, and publish my own social networking platform (I have infact done this... I just didn't publish it as I have no desire to polish it and make it a business). There are no barriers to entry that stop me from competing. Without Net Neutrality Facebook can hand each of the major ISP's $1 million and ensure that no one will use my service or anyone elses service other than theirs.

Basically people can threaten a boycott of said tv and internet if they choose. Same with facebook or any other service that exploits people.

Unless of course you use the internet. Bill paying, corporate websites, text messaging... how about even just owning a phone. All communications data goes through these telecoms. There are serious consequences to a boycott and people will simply not do it. If I wanted to boycott the internet I would quite literally have to give up all entertainment, my job, my education, and drop out of school.

If you read between the lines of what Obama said...he said he was "against fast lanes"...then by that very nature he would be for slow lanes for everyone so nobody gets better access, kind of sucks if you want to pay more to get faster lanes than anyone else doesn't it, by law that would be illegal.

You are taking that way out of context and clearly have no clue what the plan Verizon is pushing is. Obama is also not against there being different speed tiers of internet access. With Net Neutrality you can pay for a 100MB connection and actually get that speed. Without Net Neutrality your ISP can charge you for a 100MB connection, and then slow down every single website you connect to unless those websites then pay an additional premium beyond what they're already paying for web hosting. Net Neutrality means that customers actually get the product they are paying for. It's like a line in a store. Lets say you goto Lowes and want to buy a hammer. Lowe's will allow you to purchase the hammer but they demand you either wait in line for 3 hours before a cashier can get to you or you pay an extra processing fee. Then after you buy it they track you down and alter the hammer so that it can only ply nails rather than bang them in. Because the people that manufactured the hammer didn't pay Lowes some additional money.

Also shouldn't hospital and medical research networks have the fastest and highest priority lanes of all? You do want you doctor to have access to current studies when treating you don't you?

How do they not have this already? Their office can pay for a speed tier, and the journals and databases they connect to can purchase a large enough section of bandwidth, and fast enough servers that they can quickly return information. Net Neutrality does not stop this, and has nothing to do with that.

You shouldn't be allowed to pay more for a better processor right?

Where does Net Neutrality mandate that everyone gets the same speeds? It doesn't. It says that data is processed in a first come first serve basis without discriminating against or altering a subsection of packets.

And what of the police they should have congested networks too, blocked up with movies and facebook? I don't know but it seems to me that some services maybe higher priority than others, how do you implement that in a neutral environment?

You give them more bandwidth. The same as you already do to handle that.

a reply to: Aazadan

You made my point at the end with regard to medicine and police. With regard to fast hospital networks, you're joking when you think they are already fast right? How long do you have to wait on average from cancer diagnosis to gene sequence to drug compatibility? A great deal of time right now. Manhatten Project of Medecine

I've built some websites and run a server in the past, a long time ago, all packets are not equal. it doesn't work that way. Do I want corrupt companies using this weakness to their advantage? No. Do I want the government to? No. Cellphones suck and are overrated and the science seems to imply they are involved in tumors depending on which scientist you ask. So most of what passes for normal today, cell phones, TV on the internet maybe just a kind of distraction. The power of the net maybe communication, not entertainment, to waste that power on entertainment seems ignorant. To waste the cable pipelines on cable TV also seems an absolute waste. Both the companies and the govt want to stop us from talking to each other...why it hurts their bottom line for the fraud they create to be exposed, they are always going after critics on the net all the time. Netflix maybe a smokescreen, Net Neutrality also maybe a nicey sounding term to capture the people they want to spy on. With neutrality then it makes the network worth using cause they can't kick us off by law....the point seems to lure people onto the net so they can spy on them, don't you see...they are making you and others feel incapable of not using it, so they can better watch you. To give you fast speeds gives them the ability to lure you in to watch you, to say it maybe neutral maybe to make you think it maybe harmless for you to be kept in a soft cage. the soft cage maybe no different than a prison....they only want to kick off people that are not letting themselves be monitored on social sites like facebook or this site. They want our data, our words and thoughts. Once we go into encrypted spaces they cannot follow people or it becomes an extreme hassle. The govt and the companies are working together, you just think they are not, that maybe where you have lost the plot....apprently you think these companies can buy off politicians but think the Federal reserve and politicians cannot buy off the corporations....who runs barter town....NSA...I mean Google and Facebook run barter town.....and whom do they run it for....the federal govt....that already has the cable and telephone industries in their back pockets...but they have convinced some people I see that it maybe the other way around.

a reply to: bubbabuddha

So what I got out of what you just said was: Netflix is a smokescreen, cellphones suck, and it's all a giant conspiracy and we should make out networks worse and globally uncompetitive so that we aren't blinded as a nation by fancy distractions?

It sounds to me like you just conceded every single point.

As far as your link goes, what does that have to do with Net Neutrality, what little bit in it that talked about networks had little if anything to do with packet prioritization.

a reply to: Aazadan

It maybe all about stopping encryption, the fbi has been moaning about it since the 90s. The Internet has never been run on net neutrality. Your arguments are that legal content or illegal content maybe being blocked. I beg to differ on that. "Unlawful network traffic"...ie encryption. They write articles about how much encryption maybe bad. That maybe number one. Number two maybe no throttling. Netflix buffering got everyone all upset cause they couldn't watch house of cards basically. the appliances where people store terabytes of movies have got to go....you have to just stream it. Comcast refused to use the netflix boxes, so they decided to do peering agreements. This whole thing maybe a scam...the term was only introduced to get to the point of stopping encryption, peering agreements was how the internet grew. Net Neutrality maybe a made up term it never existed, it was not built on it, it was crazy networks strung together through peering. If you said you were a consumer or seller and wanted to buy or sell something people would have kicked you off the network. The cable companies...all the small guys sold out to them, capitalistically. Comcast shapes traffic to the biggest buyers vs the users. This maybe what happens when you share bandwith.

Were not producers, researchers or academics...were just consumers in the Prez's terminology. Third was transparency ....peering and breaking the system. No slow lanes cause of no fee. He wants to ban peering arrangements then Comcast will just cut off netflix with what will become an illegal peering agreement. He doesn't understand how packets work. Who's fighting for this....the FBI, consumer groups and content providers, with netflix posting to their facebook page, that consumers should pick winners and losers on the net not network providers.

Different routes and multiple hops blows this neutrality out of the water. But as others like to think I'm just all in with big cable. Once this takes place, more network users will be out of work. The narrative seems dynamite....they have sold this Net Neutrality BS hook line and sinker.....the govt wants to throttle, and ban encryption....the cable companies don't give a crap what you download or what podcasts you listen to. Only the govt wants to stop you from using the internet and their cheerleading squad over at Network Neutrality High School. Radio transmitters cost a ton of money, but I can undercut the FCC by putting my radio show all over the world over the net, why would the FCC NOT want to regulate that...no free speech on ham radio cause the FCC licenses it, and they have been trying to get their little mittens on cable tv. All video moving to internet protocol now FCC can get it's grip on cable companies....this maybe backdoor method to get ahold of cable and lock it down for the children as Chuckie Schumer would say. Go listen to some of the FCC meetings and events on C-Span...they must be high fiving each other right now about how the public maybe all in. Americans are so hung up on public display of body parts etc. That's just the way it is and then they censor TV like the superbowl....and are gunning for cable and the internet...it will turn out bad, it doesn't get better when the government gets involved, never has that occurred to turn out better when in media ever.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: interupt42
As a republican you should be for net neutrality to promote competition and free market principles in this global economic medium.

Right.

Maybe in 1964, but those guys are long gone. We're left with the venal idiots (willful or pretender) who have no problem denigrating science and common sense, if that's what they think the (even dumber) majority of likely voters wants to hear.

GOP? DC or the rest of the USA?


New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality

Republicans were slightly more likely to support net neutrality than Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans in the survey said they opposed fast lanes.

I don't know where you got your data but, according to Rasmussen:

61% Oppose Federal Regulation of the Internet

a reply to: greencmp


And this proves what, exactly? let's see..... 61% oppose government regulation, over 80% support net neutrality. Hmmm...I'm failing to see the problem here.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: greencmp


And this proves what, exactly? let's see..... 61% oppose government regulation, over 80% support net neutrality. Hmmm...I'm failing to see the problem here.

Apparently, it proves that 85% of Democrats and Republicans only represent 26% of the population.

If only it were true...

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Forgive my ignorace, but just because something is called (by the government) "Net Neutrality" should we simply take it at face value?

I mean, the Patriot Act has the word "Patriot" in it, so we should like that also, shouldn't we?

I'm actually trying to find a document source that isn't polluted by left or right rhetoric to study this issue before slamming it or endorsing it.

I signed in just to give you a star for this - politics have no place on the internet (except for memes )

originally posted by: bubbabuddha
a reply to: Aazadan

The Internet has never been run on net neutrality.

This right here shows you have no idea what net neutrality even is. The internet has always been run as neutral until recently and that's why everyone wants to keep it the way it has ALWAYS been. It has nothing to do with how much you pay your ISP, how much bandwidth you get from your ISP, or how much bandwidth you get at a hosting site. It's about the ISP's, being the middle men, getting to charge extra to the website owners to deliver their content to end users who request it without slowing it down along the way. I don't think it can be made any simpler than that really.

originally posted by: greencmp
I don't know where you got your data but, according to Rasmussen:

61% Oppose Federal Regulation of the Internet

I cited the polls...which actually ASKED HONEST QUESTIONS...rassmussen is an idiot fail of a biased pollster..

From Rassmussen..

Americans really like the online service they currently have and strongly oppose so-called “net neutrality” ...

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American Adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television.

Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Net Neutrality IS " the online service they currently "

"the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. " is not remotely what is being proposed with Net Neutrality!

Rasmussen might as well have asked "Should the internet operate at the speed of government".

Honestly...screw them for lying to the public on a critical issue.

Lastly...UNLIKE the polls I cited...Rassmussens poll was purchased...where someone paid for the questions to be asked the way they were asked...which explains the BS.

" Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC."

Pulse Opinion Research is your partner in gathering must-have information to help you make savvy decisions for your business, community group or political campaign. We provide a platform for fast, accurate public opinion polling surveys that you can set up yourself…right now. Just click on one of our survey options, from basic to expanded, tell us what questions you want to ask on either a national, state or local level, and we’ll take care of the rest. All at a fraction of the cost of traditional polling.

www.pulseopinionresearch.com...

That survey is bought propaganda..

originally posted by: greencmp

I don't know where you got your data but, according to Rasmussen:

61% Oppose Federal Regulation of the Internet

Berin Szoka — president of the libertarian-leaning TechFreedom, which opposed Obama's framework — described the Rasmussen question as "stupid," and noted the regulations should have been compared to those governing traditional telephones.

originally posted by: bubbabuddha
It maybe all about stopping encryption, the fbi has been moaning about it since the 90s. The Internet has never been run on net neutrality. Your arguments are that legal content or illegal content maybe being blocked. I beg to differ on that. "Unlawful network traffic"...ie encryption. They write articles about how much encryption maybe bad. That maybe number one.

If the government were behind the push to impose new regulations then maybe. But it's Comcast that's trying to rewrite the laws. Besides that we've had the encryption debate before in this country and the crypto fans won. To borrow from XKCD briefly, I think that if we go back to that debate that encryption is a weapon and therefore in need of regulation there would be a good second amendment case to keep it. That's if all the technical arguments about the need and importance of encryption fail.

Number two maybe no throttling. Netflix buffering got everyone all upset cause they couldn't watch house of cards basically. the appliances where people store terabytes of movies have got to go....you have to just stream it.

There's actually a good reason for being able to store shows locally. It has to do with repetition of data and it's one of the first things I learned when creating online apps. You don't want to stream the same information from the server twice. From a corporate perspective that means you're paying to process more data, from the ISP perspective it means bandwidth usage increases, and from the end user perspective it means delays. Local hard drives can access information much faster than it can be obtained by going over the internet.

Streaming is a great technology but it shouldn't be used for everything. Note that I'm not even a fan of Netflix, I don't watch basically any tv's/movies but if I did or when I did in the past (gave up TV in 2004) I would rather download the video so that if I want to rewatch it I don't have to use more bandwidth. However, even though I'm not a fan of Netflix I think it's very important that we have a network policy in this country that allows them and every other online business out there the chance to compete and succeed or fail based on how many customers they can attract rather than give the ISP's the power to pick winners and losers.

Net Neutrality maybe a made up term it never existed, it was not built on it, it was crazy networks strung together through peering.

The internet has used it as a principal since the beginning. The term itself was first coined 10 years ago but it just gave a name to an already existing set of principals.

they have sold this Net Neutrality BS hook line and sinker.....the govt wants to throttle, and ban encryption....the cable companies don't give a crap what you download or what podcasts you listen to. Only the govt wants to stop you from using the internet and their cheerleading squad over at Network Neutrality High School. Radio transmitters cost a ton of money, but I can undercut the FCC by putting my radio show all over the world over the net, why would the FCC NOT want to regulate that...no free speech on ham radio cause the FCC licenses it, and they have been trying to get their little mittens on cable tv.

The government funded a public browser that encrypts all traffic. The NSA and other law enforcement agencies would like to get rid of encryption because they could more easily break your fourth amendment rights. Other sectors of the government have made encryption stronger.

As far as what the FCC wants to regulate goes, who cares? Net Neutrality means that they CAN'T regulate it. Opening the doors to thousands of pages worth of loopholes and custom legislation like what Verizon and Comcast are trying to do puts the governments foot in the door to start regulating.

originally posted by: greencmp

I don't know where you got your data but, according to Rasmussen:

61% Oppose Federal Regulation of the Internet

Biased questions, and even when asking them like that 61% of them supported Net Neutrality. That should tell you something.